Forgive me for choosing a colleague and friend, but I've been waiting for exactly this kind of media appearance from someone -- anyone! -- on our side to make this point with, and it just so happens that last night it was Breitbart editor-at-large Ben Shapiro who delivered as perfect an example as one could ever hope for. This is a must-watch for the rest of this column to make any sense whatsoever.

As one of our Founding Fathers once said, "Facts are stubborn things," and when faced with facts, calm logic, and someone fully prepared for the encounter, after a fifteen minute appearance last night with our own Ben Shapiro, CNN's Morton Downey Jr. Piers Morgan was left gasping for air. This was Morgan's worst nightmare realized and, for a whole host of reasons, something we need to see happen more often all across the media landscape.

What made Shapiro's appearance last night especially worthy of note had nothing to do with the fact that a left-wing media demagogue had his head handed to him. It's not enough anymore to simply win the media moment. For example

Throughout the presidential election, we saw John Sununu regularly kick all kinds of butt on MSNBC. But how many minds did he change? How many votes were swayed? Calling Andrea Mitchell out as an Obama partisan might make the choir cheer (it did me), but this is a hearts and minds campaign.

*snip*

When it comes to Piers Morgan and his gun control mania, we've seen more than a few Sununu moments created by our side that might have made the choir cheer but did little to change many minds. In the end, it's all noise; it's all flash; it's all a meaningless game of checkers.

I wish someone would ask these talking heads how many armed guards they have around them at all times and how many armed guards there are in the studio. And ask them if it’s easy to get into their gated neighborhood or appartment.

Oh they trot out the child all the time. Judge Roll doesn’t count in their eyes because he was male, Caucasian, Christian, and conservative. They’re probably pleased because 0bama gets to appoint a life term leftist psychopath in his place.

5
posted on 01/11/2013 3:04:00 PM PST
by Trod Upon
(Civilian disarmament is the precursor to democide.)

Shapiro states correctly that the Second Amendment is written specifically for the American people to be well armed. They are to form a militia in times of crisis and will be used to protect the people of these united States. Folks this is about your property rights. It is also to have the effect of a counterweight; a deterrent to a government that becomes tyrannical.

It is not to be infringed.

Piers Morgan weaves a familiar script where he insisted on Shapiro to answer his question. If you noticed, the trap is set when Morgan doesnt allow the guest to answer. He will intentionally interrupt the guest with another question or allegation. He will continue stacking the questions and allegations.

Indeed, Piers Morgans strategy is to paint a tapestry of the guest being insensitive and absurd.

In legal circles, such tactics would be a form of leading the witness, which would not be allowed in a court of law. Granted, the Piers Morgan show is not a court of law. Nevertheless, in any public debate there are rules of engagement. Each side is allowed to respond without constant interruption. Piers Morgan has an annoying habit of not letting his guest finish his point.

Alex Jones was adept in recognizing that the Piers Morgan Show is not a stage for a fair debate. Jones did not allow Piers Morgan to weave a web of questions and allegations. Each time Alex Jones fired back with a library of published statistics and facts.

In this regard, Alex Jones took Piers Morgan to the wood shed.

Unfortunately, Jones came off as a ranting, raving loon and his insistence that the US government had something to do with the destruction of the NY twin towers did him no favors.

It is also important noting that Piers Morgan and other anti-gun pundits ask repeatedly:

Why does anyone need a military assault rifle like that of a AR-15?

How many times was this question answered by the guests in those interviews?

Ben Shapiro answered it TWICE. It is to have the effect of a counterweight; a deterrent to a government that becomes tyrannical. Our government might not be tyrannical like Stalin or the Nazis now, but there is no guarantee that it wont slowly evolve that way. THAT is why we need a means of protecting ourselves and DETERRING Tyranny.

Shapiro, being a Jew, effectively informs Piers of how his ancestors were affected in Europe under the Nazis because they had no means of protecting themselves.

I have no idea what this author said, but in many ways Todd Aikin deserves to be bashed. He personally lost a perfectly winnable senate seat, literally their most vulnerable because of his own stupidity. He did it all by himself, no one else to blame. Stubborn, ego driven, and incapable of seeing clearly.

Why does anyone need a military assault rifle like that of a AR-15? How many times was this question answered by the guests in those interviews? Ben Shapiro answered it TWICE. It is to have the effect of a counterweight; a deterrent to a government that becomes tyrannical. Our government might not be tyrannical like Stalin or the Nazis now, but there is no guarantee that it wont slowly evolve that way. THAT is why we need a means of protecting ourselves and DETERRING Tyranny.

It's like the old schoolchild's joke:

"Why are you waving your arms like that?"

"To keep the elephants away!"

"I don't seen any elephants."

"Then it's working!"

The "need" for assault rifles is in its presence.

The simple fact that people keep and bear them is enough to keep the government from descending into tyranny.

It's a red-herring to suggest that we don't need them because the government has never turned on us in 236 years. The truth is that the government has been successfully deterred from turning on us all this time because we are armed.

-PJ

9
posted on 01/11/2013 3:33:38 PM PST
by Political Junkie Too
(If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)

How fetching that Mr Nolte extols the performance of his boss(!) on the P. Morgan show!

Nolte is a fine guy, but this article on Shapiro is parallel to MSM puff pieces on leftists.

First, Shapiro was very weak from a Second Amendment point of view, as he was ceding ground left and right, to wit:

1. He is fine with banning the private sale of weapons without an intrusive Government background check. (Where is that in the Second Amendment?)

2. He wants laws requiring people to lock up their own weapons in their own homes. (Where is that in the Second Amendment?)

3. He is in favor of a Federal Government gun registry, provided it is not made public. (That would be a secret gun registry, Harvard Law Grad Shapiro.) (Where is that in the Second Amendment.)

4. He appears to fail to understand the definition of an “assault rifle.”

5. He favors stronger background checks and mental-health screening. (This guy is supposed to be on our side?)

6. He indicated that he is comfortable with a military veteran friend of his owning an AR-15. Obvious implication: He is not comfortable with the current 1Million-item backlog on ARs.

7. He says he lost relatives in the Holocaust, and he is this willing to cave and make concessions? Mind boggling.

Resolved: The time for being defensive about the Second Amendment (and what it REALLY means) is over. We need to go on offense in the public square. No more “fig leaves.” No more “reasonable concessions.” No more flirting with gun registries, background checks, or “Mother may I buy a gun.” The Left never makes concessions — only hudna (temporary concession pending preparation for the next round of battle). Ask Liberals, “Just WHOSE Second Amendment is it that you are attacking and despising?” Answer: It is MY Second Amendment. Get the hell off my founding-documentary lawn!

Someone needs to take that idiot Brit to where the US Internment camps for Japanese where located. Then ask him if he still thinks that it is absurd to assume that the US government could turn against its own law abiding citizens.

Concur. I had mixed feelings about this. I thought Shapiro is a great guy and did a reasonable job trying to assert himself, but I too was very, very troubled with how much he was ceding in this debate.

I am not sure if Mr. Shapiro just needs some more seasoning or if he really holds these unacceptable concessions as acceptable. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he just needs some additional stage practice, but if he really does support what he says, then I’m off the Shapiro bandwagon.

Absolutely NO registry of any kind, under any circumstances!

14
posted on 01/11/2013 4:19:58 PM PST
by Obadiah
(It is when a people forget God, that tyrants forge their chains.)

How fetching that Mr Nolte extols the performance of his boss(!) on the P. Morgan show!

You make some good points. I thought the praise a bit over the top, too. But, in all fairness, I found Shapiro's defense of gun rights to be one of the more eloquent that I've heard from anyone under fire from a lefty TV personality.

He didn't relent and, by bringing up the resistance-to-tyranny argument, he let a big cat out of the bag. When we stop talking about hunting and self-defense and stress that, the left will go absolutely ballistic [is that a pun?].

15
posted on 01/11/2013 4:22:19 PM PST
by BfloGuy
(Money, like chocolate on a hot oven, was melting in the pockets of the people..)

He didn't relent and, by bringing up the resistance-to-tyranny argument, he let a big cat out of the bag.

He did indeed...and then tossed in a head fake (the 40 or 50 years point) before any on the Left could raise the issue of whether or not the Conservatives believe it is Obama himself who is trying to tyrannically overthrow the U.S.

Obama is the point man of the CPUSA and CPWorld...he is leading this effort to overthrow our Constitution and Government. But Shapiro slip loose from that accusation with lawyerly if not poetic aplomb.

Did it seem disingenuous to those of us on the Right? Well, yes.

But did it work as a debate tactic.

Yes!

17
posted on 01/11/2013 4:33:21 PM PST
by RoosterRedux
(The Communist takeover of America is underway. But to win, they must first disarm us.)

He wants laws requiring people to lock up their own weapons in their own homes.

I watched the interview. While being interrupted, he was attempting to interject the qualifier "If there is a mentally disturbed family member" into that particular condition. It, of course, got talked over by the odious Redcoat Morgan.

22
posted on 01/11/2013 5:06:43 PM PST
by Lazamataz
(LAZ'S LAW: As an argument with liberals goes on, the probability of being called racist approaches 1)

I, like you, am angry as h$ll about the Left's attack on the 2nd Amendment (and I don't disagree with Jones on this matter...though I don't think it wise to talk about 9/11 insider theories at the same time).

That said, Shapiro was calm (almost) and collected in his response. He didn't concede so much as refuse to argue points which were extraneous to HIS argument (i.e. he didn't let Morgan drag him off target and fog his message).

Shapiro pounded home one point...and I believe it worked (Morgan was deflated)...

Shapiro's point was that the 2nd Amendment is our defense against tyranny (uh oh, new tag line alert;-)). It worked against King George (in that we refused to disarm)...and will work against Obama and his successors.

As a follow-on point, Obama took an oath to defend the Constitution...not to destroy it.

Nonetheless, that is hardly reassuring. From requiring those with mental patients in their home to lock up their weapons, to requiring ALL of us to lock up our weapons... is a very short reach indeed.

Shapiro made me very uneasy when he said (more than once), “we need to calibrate our laws....” Remember: Shapiro is a Harvard-trained l-a-w-y-e-r.

So, I respectfully disagree with you. No more laws. We have more than enough laws on the books already. Actually, we need LESS laws on the books, with genuine enforcement of laws against murder, theft, etc (not against inanimate objects).

Going further (logically), as I have said elsewhere: No more “defending” the Second Amendment. To borrow a phrase used by our Chief Justice (about the odious Roe v Wade decision), it is “settled law.” It needs not to be defended. We need to demand of its detractors that they respect it or risk of being called subversive traitors, enemies (whether foreign or domestic).

The problem I have with this is the simple fact that if someone wants to find an idiot in any group consisting of thousands they will find that idiot.

There is no way we could possibly train every Conservative to preform as perfectly as Ben Shapiro did. This is true for the same reason we can’t all play professional football. Talent, knowledge, skill, and interest in any given area are by no means uniform charcherist in any given population.

Ben Shapiro did an excellent job of studying his target and coming prepared to address its particular form of attack. (Something I think many if not most of us are capable of doing.) Indeed if every conservative was so well organized and prepared I think you would find the left never interviewing them, and that in itself is the problem.

They don’t try to pick people capable of defending their point of view, they try to arrange confrontations in favorable conditions against favorably weaker opponents. This is the art of war, and they have a decisive advantage with control over the microphone.

What Ben Shapiro successfully did was make them think he was weak when he was really quite strong, thus bring the fight to a field he was prepared for. A field they would have avoided had they known.

Your comments are correct, but the caveat for every conservative is “in my view”. We already agree on the imporatance of liberty and the 2nd Amendment. It is the mushy middle that needs to be corralled.

Sadly, the mushy middle consists of white women who would otherwise side with us, but voted Obama in. It is in their view that our arguments make sense.

The call for “common sense gun laws” are a fight for the mushy middle. We won’t win it without arguments that convince them. Then as the heat turns down simple legislative manuvering kills the rest off.

Our error is in responding to direclty. Better to get back to Benghazi, Fast and Furious, and the ongoing corruption of the Obama Admin. Stop fighting on their terms, turn their flanks and attack.

Your comments are correct, but the caveat for every conservative is “in my view”. We already agree on the imporatance of liberty and the 2nd Amendment. It is the mushy middle that needs to be corralled.

Sadly, the mushy middle consists of white women who would otherwise side with us, but voted Obama in. It is in their view that our arguments make sense.

The call for “common sense gun laws” are a fight for the mushy middle. We won’t win it without arguments that convince them. Then as the heat turns down simple legislative manuvering kills the rest off.

Our error is in responding to direclty. Better to get back to Benghazi, Fast and Furious, and the ongoing corruption of the Obama Admin. Stop fighting on their terms, turn their flanks and attack.

Of course one sure way to beat the media would be to encourage our kids to enter that profession. We might also want to explore investing in computer driven home schooling programs and start pulling our kids out of the public education propaganda meat grinder. The fact that we face a hostile press means that we did something wrong back then, eh.

Ben Shapiro is a new American hero. He stood straight and strong and made the case for inividual sovereignty under the Bill of Rights! Bravo Mr. Shapiro and Semper Fi! This limey fop, Piers Morgan, is a statist, a self-absorbed narcissist in search of higher ratings. The only criticism I offer is that WE MUST REJECT THE LANGUAGE OF THE LEFT! NEVER REFER TO THESE WEAPONS AS “ASSAULT RIFLES.” I have never assaulted anyone with my rifle. My rifle is a HOME DEFENSE RIFLE! To win the battle, we must command the high ground of language. Never again use the canard, “ASSAULT RIFLE.” It’s a trap. This is where we are defeated time again by the left. They assume the terms and we go along. I will never relinquish my HOME DEFENSE RIFLE, under my constitutional right to bear arms; under my Natural Right to defense of my Life and Property. Hey Piers...it’s not up for debate!

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.